On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 17:54 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 05:48:31PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:54 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:52:44PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > > The first question is how many compromises do you need. Without > > > > co-operation from windows, you don't get to install something in the > > > > boot system, so if you're looking for a single compromise vector, the > > > > only realistic attack is to trick the user into booting a hacked linux > > > > system from USB or DVD. > > > > > > You run a binary. It pops up a box saying "Windows needs your permission > > > to continue", just like almost every other Windows binary that's any > > > use. Done. > > > > And if all the loaders do some type of present user test on a virgin > > system, how do you propose to get that message up there? > > ? That's the message generated by the Windows access control mechanism > when you run a binary that requests elevated privileges. So that's a windows attack vector using a windows binary? I can't really see how it's relevant to the secure boot discussion then. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
